Social Psychology Flashcards

Social Psychology

Scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others

Attributions

Explanations for the occurrence of events or actions, including other’s behavior

Personal (Dispositional) Attribution

Explanation for behavior that refers to a person's internal characteristics (e.g., personality, effort)

Situational Attribution

Explanation for behavior that refers to external events (e.g., weather, traffic, circumstances)

Fundamental Attribution Error

Tendency to overemphasize dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors when explaining OTHERS' behavior

Actor/Observer Bias

Tendency to attribute OUR OWN behavior to situational factors, but OTHERS' behavior to dispositional factors

self serving bias

Tendency to attribute our SUCCESSES to dispositional factors (e.g., "I'm smart") and our FAILURES to situational factors (e.g., "the test was unfair")

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

People's tendency to behave in ways that confirm their own or others' expectations

Rosenthal & Jacobson 1968

Self-fulfilling prophecy in elementary school, whereby “Bloomers” did better because treated differently

Stereotype

Socially shared cognitive belief about a social group — information with no emotional connotation (e.g., "blonds are superficial")

Subtyping

When confronted with a non-stereotypical individual, creating a special subcategory instead of updating the stereotype

Ex: Elderly people are bad with tech. Meet a tech-savvy 80-year-old → mentally label them "an exception" instead of updating the stereotype.

Prejudice

Negative feelings, opinions, and attitudes associated with a stereotype (e.g., "I don't like blonds")

Discrimination

Inappropriate and unjustified treatment of people as a result of prejudice (e.g., "I don't speak to blonds")

A Class Divided (Jane Elliott, 1968)

Teacher told students blue-eyed kids were superior. Blue-eyed kids became bossy and performed better; brown-eyed kids became withdrawn and performed worse — then roles reversed the next day. Demonstrates how discrimination causes real psychological and academic harm, and how prejudice is reinforced through authority and social context.

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Our group memberships (social identities) are an important part of how we view ourselves

Ingroup

A group that we belong to

Outgroup

A group that we do not belong to

Ingroup Favoritism

Tendency to favor and give more resources to members of one's own ingroup over the outgroup

Minimal Group Paradigm (Billig & Tajfel, 1973)

Even trivial, arbitrary group assignments (e.g., over/underestimating dots) cause ingroup favoritism — minimal basis needed to show bias

Outgroup Homogeneity

Tendency to perceive outgroup members as more similar to each other ("they're all the same") than ingroup members

Shooter Bias (Correll et al., 2002)

Participants made more errors shooting unarmed Black targets and more errors NOT shooting armed Black targets — unconscious racial stereotypes influence split-second decisions

Modern Racism

Subtle forms of prejudice that coexist with rejection of overtly racist beliefs; appears as indifference to minority concerns rather than outright hostility. Caused by perceived threat

Social Facilitation (Triplett, 1898)

The mere presence of others ENHANCES performance — first demonstrated with cyclists racing vs. clock, and children winding fishing line faster in pairs

Social Loafing (Ringelmann, 1913)

Tendency to work LESS hard in a group than when alone — occurs when individuals feel they won't be personally evaluated (e.g., men pulling rope in a group pulled less hard than alone)

Normative Influence

Going along with the majority to avoid social rejection; public compliance but NOT necessarily private acceptance; driven by need to belong

Informational Influence

Going along with the majority because you believe they have more accurate information; leads to private acceptance; occurs in ambiguous situations

Asch's Conformity Study

Unambiguous line-length task: 76% conformed at least once, 1/3 conformed nearly every trial, 24% never conformed — showed high normative influence even on clear perceptual tasks

Bystander Apathy (Latané & Darley, 1968)

Failure to help people in need when others are present.

Why?

(1) Informational influence — unsure how to read the ambiguous situation so look to others who are also doing nothing.

(2) Normative influence — fear of social embarrassment if they misread the situation, so expect someone else to act first.

(3) Cost-benefit evaluation — less likely to help when anonymous and able to stay that way.

Diffusion of Responsibility

The more bystanders present, the less personal responsibility each individual feels to help

Milgram Shock Experiment (1961)

65% of participants obeyed authority and administered shocks all the way to 450V — ordinary people can inflict extraordinary harm; participants entered an "agentic state," losing sense of personal responsibility AND resistance

Agentic State

When a person acts as an agent of authority rather than an autonomous individual — shifts responsibility to the authority figure (key explanation for Milgram's results)

Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)

Ended after 6 (of 15) days; 1/3 of guards became tyrannical — supports situational hypothesis: social roles and context can overwhelm positive personal dispositions

Deindividuation

State of reduced individuality and personal accountability, often occurring in group/role contexts — contributed to guard cruelty in Stanford Prison Experiment

BBC Prison Experiment (Reicher & Haslam, 2005)

Revisited Zimbardo; found guards did NOT naturally adopt tyrannical roles — tyranny requires active leadership promoting shared social identity; shared identity can also be a basis for RESISTANCE

Situational Hypothesis

Behavior is primarily determined by social context and roles rather than individual personality/disposition (vs. dispositional hypothesis)